Latest hype: scrapping

European countries are investing billions trying to guide their automobile industries safely through the crisis. Germany is in the lead, offering a €2500 environmental subsidy to new-car buyers who send their vehicles of nine years old or more to the scrap yard. Car manufacturers (the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, ACEA) are even urging to take cars to the scrap heap after eight years, for which the previous model of Volkswagen Passat qualifies (rated 'clean' by Euro 2 and 3 emission standards!)

Temporary solace
Following the introduction of catalytic converters, scrapping schemes were introduced in many countries. They sometimes targeted foul Trabants, but sometimes geared elsewhere, towards old but energy-efficient cars such as the Citroën 2CV. In this manner the French traded in petrol fumes for the smell of diesel, at a time when, just as today, the goal was to help the national car industry through difficult times. It usually offered only temporary solace, after which sales plummeted further – exactly the reason why the Dutch automobile sector (RAI/BOVAG) rejected a scrapping scheme at the time.

Environmental argument
Because of the credit crisis, the sector now seems to be opting for short-term gains. Of particular note is the environmental argument, claiming that “old cars produce a hundred times more pollution than modern ones”. If this were really the case, then the air quality would have been so bad in 1975 (with a few million Beetles, Kadetts, 2CVs, DS’s and Minis on the roads) that city dwellers would have been dying in massive numbers of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Although this was never apparent, as sales of diesel cars and catalytic converters increased, nitrous oxide and particulates did trade places with carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons as the dominant problem substances.

Saab advertisements also exaggeratively stated that “the exhaust fumes of a (Euro 2) Saab 900 Turbo are cleaner than the city air that goes into the engine”. Is this really true? It is true that modern technologies reduce CO, HC, NOx and particulate emissions by more than ninety per cent. The difference between 'dirty' and 'clean' does not lie between Euro 2 and Euro 4 or 5, but depends on the presence of a catalytic converter or soot filter.

Behaviour
However, practice tests conducted by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) have shown that driving behaviour makes a greater difference than the difference between, say, Euro 2 and Euro 4. For example, people who drive 'for sport' (think Top Gear) in a Euro 2 Saab 900 Turbo produce eight times more pollution than allowed by the Euro 2 rating.

EU test-specific engine mapping ('cycle beating' by manufacturers) and excessively-dynamic driving behaviour mean that most cars in reality pollute much more than their fancy Euro rating would suggest. Only 'ecodrivers' – in the Netherlands, one in three motorists – pollute and consume no more on average than in the Euro test (to see how, visit www.hetnieuwerijden.nl > English).

Moreover, diesel engines (with the exception of 'AdBlue-equipped' versions, using a urea solution to reduce exhaust emissions of oxides of nitrogen) emit up to ten times as much NOx as indirect-injection gasoline or LPG engines. The newest direct-injection petrol engines have been proven to pollute much more in the case of dynamic driving behaviour than indirect-injection engines. 'Clean cars' just don’t exist.

CO2 argument
The CO2 argument is also a spurious one. The actual fuel consumption of cars in the newest Volkswagen Golf class (roughly one in eleven!) shows no progress whatsoever (not even for diesel engines) when compared to the fuel consumption in the same segment ten or twenty years ago. This is due to upgrading: the same class – in any segment – now offers many more kilos, more horsepower and higher performance, resulting in equal levels of fuel consumption in practice.

Fairy tales
Given that the premature scrapping of every well-maintained car by definition amounts to destruction of capital. Only the scrapping of the oldest cars that have no catalytic converter or soot filter will benefit the environment. Scrapping mid-life cars with catalytic converters is pointless and a waste of money. The ACEA is inventing environmental fairy tales and arguing for the wastage of taxpayers’ money!

And another thing: on average, fewer kilometres are driven using old cars, as they are mostly owned by the lowest income earners, who will not be buying a new one anyway. Discarding cars halfway through their useful life and unnecessarily creating new ones consumes extra resources (several tens of thousands m3 of water per car) and energy (25 - 35,000 kWh per car), the antithesis of sustainability.

Symbol
Scrapping schemes are a symbol of the disposable economy. More rigorous MOT (compulsory annual test), Gear Shift Indicator (GSI), and exhaust testing provide more work to garages. Large-scale education in ecodriving (costing roughly a hundred euros per person), standard on-board computers, and speed limits will more effectively benefit the environment than scrapping subsidies. It would be better for governments to invest their billions in energy conservation, wind and solar energy. This would create more jobs than the manufacture of new but still inefficient cars, and is more economical and more sustainable, reducing our oil dependence!